Good examples of other publishers dropping the ball, Reaver. However, the frustration here isn't that there was a typo or two that got through, or some esoteric error where they referenced an incorrect page in another book or printed a rule that contradicted another book, etc. It is that errors that are immediately and unavoidably obvious to anyone that spent the time to read the book cover to cover (or even a chapter beginning to end) slip through. In every book they have published. And, what's worse, some of them are the same exact errors that were called out and acknowledged previously (like the many issues with tables).
But more specifically to the point for this reprinting is that a reprinting is supposed to include all of the official errata to date. The reprinting of the core book did. And yet this one did not. As far as can be told, not a single piece of errata was included. They didn't just overlook one or two items, they utterly failed to include it at all. It's like going to get your oil changed and they include an 11 point inspection and courtesy window cleaning and when you get the bill they've charged you full price, included the results of the 11 point inspection and your windows are sparkling clean, but they neglected to change the oil. In the case of SG's reprinting, the new cover art is nice and all, but if someone's ponying up the money to repurchase a physical copy, it's because they want a single point of reference for the rules that includes the errata.
Now, in my opinion, SG wasn't ready for a reprinting anyway. There are way to many issues still outstanding that have been brought up by the community and not addressed by Catalyst to consider a reprinting substantially more usable than the original (even if it had included all of the currently published errata). They should have waited for Patrick and his team to finish at least their first pass (the low hanging fruit and most egregious errors) before asking folks to pony up for a reprint. Those asking for a new printing were a mote on the wind compared to the hurricane of demand for additional errata and clarification (and even then, I think they were largely asking for an update to the PDF).
So, yes, you've shown that all publishers are guilty of making the occasional mistake (they're human, just like we are and no one expects Catalyst to be absolutely perfect). And you've shown that in the paper publishing world, it can take years for updated material to reach print. But I know that in many of those cases (TSR/Wizards and SJG) they provided timely errata on the Internet once that became a viable mechanism (in the last 15 or so years) as I availed myself of it personally. So examples from the 80's and early to mid 90's utterly ignore the sea change that the Internet has had on the ability for publishers to reach their audience (or hear from them).
If you are a publisher, and your job is publishing, one expects a certain minimum level of competence at that function (cue the "You had ONE job" meme). Company size is no excuse. If I take my clothes to a tailor to be repaired and I get them back in unsatisfactory condition, I'm not going to suddenly say "oh, that's perfectly understandable" when the tailor says "oh, well, I only have one employee". I'm going to say "hire more or accept less work, but fix my clothes properly." If he's the only tailor in town (as Catalyst is the only publisher that can print Shadowrun rulebooks) and I therefore have to keep taking my clothes to him to be repaired and he consistently has low quality, I have a right to be upset and get even more irate, and eventually either seek another tailor in another town (new game system), or start buying clothes that are disposable (not sure what the analogy would be here - house rules?). The point is, no, I have never worked a day in the publishing industry. Nor have I worked as a tailor or a mechanic. I don't know what is involved in producing a quality product in those industries. But I have been a customer of all of the above and I know what I should reasonably expect of their products. Catalyst has consistently missed that mark, despite multiple assurances that they would fix the issues at fault.
We have a right to be upset and to demand (and expect) better, and to pretend otherwise is to be an unabashed apologist. It is understandable that we are angry and might be rude in expressing our anger. We can point the finger at the editor, because we own dictionaries and know that the editor is the one that is responsible for making sure the work is up to standard before it goes to printing. So when we say that the editor has failed in his (or her) job, we aren't miscasting our vitriol. As you said, the errata was supposed to be in this book. It was not. No, we don't know what happened (exactly), but we sure as hell know who was responsible. Now, you could argue that the printer dropped the ball. That the editor had all his (or her) ducks in a row and what went to the printer had all the errata, and updated content, and whatever else was supposed to have gone into the reprint. But we have a history of failure that makes that exceedingly unlikely. If they lay the blame at the printer for every past misdeed, then they are still responsible as they should have replaced that printer long ago (which, okay, MIGHT not be the editor's job). But that would still sit wrong as no one has yet (officially) laid the blame at printing, and that would not impact the PDF copy. So we are right back to the editor being where the buck stops. Maybe there are other employees there that are incompetent, maybe that's why the book doesn't have what it is supposed to, but the RESPONSIBILITY lays at the editor's feet.
Now, there is a case to be made for people perhaps being too personal in their accusations, name calling, and other inexcusable deficiencies in decorum, but the moderators have done a swell job of calling those out and corralling them. There is no call for you to address the rest of the community in such a fashion or lump all those expressing their dissatisfaction into one disdainful group.
